I am entirely sympathetic to those individuals whose malfunctioning sexual urges cause them so much grief. It may even be true that the best they can hope for is a “committed and caring relationship.” Still, I think that it is a fact that such a relationship – hard enough for ordinary men and women to attain – is a rarer thing among homosexuals. The natural compatibilities are lacking, and there are often deep-seated personal problems associated with sexuality that prevent such an individual from attaining normal friendships and relationships.

But the question of what is best for an individual is less than important than the question of what is best for society as a whole. Public homosexuality is incompatible with a traditional heterosexual morality – incompatible with any sane sexual morality. One of the heaviest burdens that homosexuals must therefore bear is conformance to the rules of a civilization which has produced them, but in which they cannot both fully fit in and also be fulfilled as individuals. I believe that this aspect of society is more important than individual freedoms of homosexuals, and they must make certain sacrifices. Society cannot tolerate any open practice of homosexuality. Beyond that, I believe that every tolerance and sympathy should be afforded those suffering under this burden.

Good statement by Thrasy. I’ve previously argued that society should do nothing that suggests approval of homosexuality. Thrasy has added to that position with his remark that “Society cannot tolerate any open practice of homosexuality.”

Is there any doubt that this is true? I don’t want to rely on the slippery slope argument here, but it seems evident from our own experience in this country in recent decades that acceptance of the open expression of homosexuality makes it impossible for a society to hold onto traditional morality. Once you accept homosexuality as ok, you ultimately can’t say no to anything. It’s truly an either/or situation.

Of course, it could be argued that the acceptance of homosexuality is itself but the inevitable result of a prior cause, e.g., the denial of God, as in Romans I. But still, in the downward course of a society, it seems to me that the acceptance of homosexuality is a turning point.

Is there any doubt that this is true?
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on October 9, 2003 06:52 PM

Yes, there is very much doubt indeed. It is quite easy, one might almost say effortless, to accept homosexuality and say no to all sorts of things.
And there has been practically no denial of God in the United States. It’s by far and away the most God-besotted country in the Western world.
You’ll have to do better than that, Mr. Auster.

Was I saying that if a society (or a person) accepts homosexulity, it (or he or she) instantly loses the ability to say no to everything? Of course not. It’s a gradual process, but real and substantial. One thing after another that a people had the ability to say no to, they start to accept.

However, I would amend what I said earlier. The key event that causes a society to lose the will and ability to make moral judgments is not homosexual liberation, but sexual liberation.

I don’t think homosexuality is the major turning point. I think that acceptance of contraception, rather than abstinence for married couples who have a significant reason to cease or delay having children, makes acceptance of homosexuality inevitable. In fact one of the major practical arguments in favor of Roman Catholicism is that it is the only major religion to draw the line at contraception. A society that hates sexual abstinence is a society that hates children.

Ah, I posted mine before I saw Mr. Auster’s. We are closer than it might have appeared, it seems.

Mr. Purdy writes: “It is quite easy, one might almost say effortless, to accept homosexuality and say no to all sorts of things.”

I actually wish that it were. Unfortunately, it seems that fostering acceptance of homosexuality upon a population requires an educational and media effort that is seriously corrosive of sexual mores in general. The most serious problem is that the male homosexual community does not naturally organize itself into marriage pairs as the rest of our society does (and has long before Christianity even – something which suggests human nature). The two separate trends require such an amount of energy to reconcile that is seems impossible for our society to cater to both well.

I wrote:
“A society that hates sexual abstinence is a society that hates children.”

Note the counterpoint to this: suppose that _everyone_ in a society is expected to abstain from time to time for reasons of chastity - including a married couple who has a grave reason to stop or delay having children. This is not a society in which sex as a _need_ can be used as an excuse to commit evil acts (of comission or omission) against children.

Mr. Auster made a statement in a previous thread that relates here at least in part:

‘[T]he moment a society, in the name of democracy and equality, grants “full inclusion” to formerly excluded groups such as Muslims or homosexuals whose beliefs and behavior happen to be fundamentally incompatible with those of the society, the society by that very act has given up the ability to speak unpleasant truths about those groups, because such unpleasant truths would exclude those groups once again.’

And once we give up the right to speak frankly about those things, we have in effect handed up the right to speak about ANY other evil, since we’ve essentially renounced against the foundation of our common morality, (i.e. the Bible.)

The beginning of this decline was simply a turning away from God. That is where Romans 1 begins in the section relevant to this discussion. Many things pushed society in this direction, notably the doctrine of biological evolution that stripped man of his dignity as created in God’s image and reduced him to the level of animals.

This in a way parallels Paul’s reference to how man, “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.”

As to Mr. Purdy’s statement that, “there has been practically no denial of God in the United States.” It is true that most Americans honor God, but the liberal establishment that is in power has been on a crusade to strip all reference to the Divine in public life. The schools have been taken over by this same humanistic madness. That the people still largely acknowledge God weighs in our favor, but we can’t escape forever the consequences of the direction our leadership is taking us.

Paul appealed to the witness of nature, (much as Psalm 19,) and declared, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” There will come a point where God will have to judge, or else, as someone has said, He will owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorah.

Mr. LeFevre, you may be right about the social consequences of Darwin’s theory, but I am unsure what the answer to that is. I do think that the theory leads certain intellectuals to a foolish sort of moral extremism. I wonder, though, how best to persuade others of the reconciliation between the modern understanding of biology and Christian religious truths.

Matt, you have a very good point. I never thought of the connection to abstinence, but I have written before about how our society seems to be far worse at raising children than it once was:

http://thrasymachus.typepad.com/thras/2003/09/raising_childre.html

I think that many parallel and negative trends are caught up in this. Thank you for your additional insight.

I find it bitterly ironic that traditionalists apparently fail to see that the difference between their beliefs and those of conservative muslims are almost indistinguishable.
Muslims are opposed to contraception. Muslims are vehemently opposed to acceptance of homosexuals. Muslims are strongly committed to the family. And the Sharia seems to me to be practically a clone of Matt’s ideas about Godly governance and the irrelevance of the consent of the governed.
So whence this opposition? It seems to me like you should get along very well indeed.

Thrasymachus wrote:
“I think that many parallel and negative trends are caught up in this.”

I agree. Mr. Auster’s general comment on sexual liberation captures a lot of it. That’s a good article at Thrasy’s site too, and the study he links to is quite interesting. I suppose the good news is that if authoritarian societies are the only kind that can raise functional children that is one more loaded chamber in the liberal suicide gun.

“Thank you for your additional insight.”

My pleasure, and thank you for yours also.

Mr. Purdy wrote:
“And the Sharia seems to me to be practically a clone of Matt’s ideas about Godly governance and the irrelevance of the consent of the governed.”

Mr. Purdy must not be reading my comments very carefully, or must be having some difficulty understanding them (no doubt in part due to my presentation) in order to think this.

My claim about consent of the governed wasn’t that it is irrelevant. My claim is that withdrawal of the consent of the governed is not a moral justification for disobedience or armed rebellion, and in fact that such a withdrawal is irrelevant to any legitimate moral justification for rebellion. My claim is that no government - not even ours right now - derives its actual powers from the consent of the governed; and if a government’s powers are just, their justness does not derive from the consent of the governed.

The Civil War comes up quite a lot at VFR, no doubt because it represents the first major violent breakdown of liberalism in America after the founding. Indeed about the same number of Americans died in it as in all other wars combined. Abortion is the only man-made act that dwarfs the Civil War in terms of number of Americans killed. The confederates no doubt legitimately thought that they had established a federal government-by-consent, in which the States had delegated powers to the Federal government that they could withdraw at will. Such a thing is unnatural, though. It denies to the federal government some just powers that are necessary in order for it to be a government at all. 600,000 dead are the result of that denial, and more than a century of confusion and acrimony. Operating under the illusion that a government can be constituted by deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed will always lead to large scale violence.

Recognizing that fact of nature is a very long way from saying that Sharia or something like it ought to be employed, or that Islam is not the enemy of the West. If Mr. Purdy is incapable of seeing that I in all likelihood cannot help him. I understand from others that my prose tends to be difficult to follow.

Thrasy asked, “I wonder, though, how best to persuade others of the reconciliation between the modern understanding of biology and Christian religious truths.”

That anyone could actually believe something so stupid and farcical as the notion that we came from monkeys, and before that other creatures, is a testament to how desperate man is to throw off belief in a Divine Creator, to Whom he just might then be accountable.

But Sir Julian Huxley didn’t conceal an underlying motivation in his well-known quote explaining why evolution was so eagerly embraced: “…because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”

The whole doctrine of evolution must rest on presuppositions that are impossible to prove anyway, such as the doctrine of uniformitarianism. But geological interpretations based on the fact of the Noachian Flood pose real problems to that view.

I have no problem at all with the works of Dr. Henry Morriss and other creation scientists in presenting other models to how things became as they are. (www.icr.org) If you ever get a chance, you should attend a debate between one of the ICR scientists and an evolutionist. You’d be amazed. Such debates are not always easy to come by, as evolutionists are typically not enthusiastic about it — with good reason.

Why do you think the liberal establishment is so desperate to keep even “intelligent design” from being taught alongside evolution?? For the same reason they’ve purged conservatism and can only countenance their liberal cant. In order for such bluthering nonsense to stand, it must be unopposed. And most major media go along.

The fact is, evolution as a ‘theory’ is increasingly in trouble. More and more books are available, like ‘Darwin’s Black Box,’ that punch holes in the theory large enough to drive a truck through. ‘Intelligent Design’ is increasing in respect. But liberals cannot give up on evolution, because the alternative points to something that they simply cannot accept.

It may certainly be true that evolutionists are not eager to debate macroevolutionary theory with the ICR staff. But it is also true that the ICR staff does not fare so well when debating the age of the earth, whether with evolutionists, old-earth creationists, or just geologists. Believe me; I have been there, done that, on both sides of the issue in the course of my lifetime. I suppose this is not the place to debate that issue, but the point is that Thrasy was aware of the need for reconciling science and scripture without simply denying a good part of our scientific knowledge. Whether he accepts some sort of macroevolutionary theory that I reject I cannot say, but I don’t think that traditionalists are going to be very persuasive arguing for a young earth. Check out “Creation and Time” by Dr. Hugh Ross for a catalog of young-earth myths that have been answered countless times and still persist today.

Old-earth versus young-earth is a trivial sideshow to the point being made about evolution and the effect of convincing man that he is made in the image of the animals, rather than in the image of God. That is an issue for all traditionalists to confront.

Thrasymachus wrote:

“I wonder, though, how best to persuade others of the reconciliation between the modern understanding of biology and Christian religious truths.”

If Thrasy means that Darwinian evolution can be reconciled with Christianity (a fallacy adopted by all too many people), he should read Carol Iannone’s article, “William Jennings Bryan was right”:

http://www.nypress.com/14/18/taki/perspectives.cfm

I’m familiar with the works of Dr. Ross, and find his critique of ICR’s view quite unconvincing. There are numerous problems with the old-age earth theory. To name a couple off the top of my head, the amount of nickel in the ground, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the decreasing strength of the earth’s electromagnetic field. And these objections haven’t been answered satisfactorily in my opinion.

I lack the qualifications to debate this issue, but the one point remains: Let all theories be taught alongside one another, and let each student use his brain to determine who has the best argument. THIS notion is anathema to the ruling elite.

Remember too that when the Scopes trial was underway, the ACLU insisted it was only arguing for ‘academic freedom,’ that is, that BOTH sides should be taught as working theories. Once the doctrine of evolution was permitted to be taught as valid theory, this of course changed to where ONLY evolution could be taught. Typical liberal tactics.

If the Genesis account, and the young-age earth interpretation thereof, are so weak then why is there such vehement opposition in allowing the evidence to be presented? It’s not out of any deep-seated fear that the uniformitarian/evolutionist view would emerge triumphant, I assure you.

Let them be debated. Openly and fairly. Can Traditionalists at least agree on THAT?

If so, excellent! — that’s all that’s needed as far as I’m concerned.

We all know what effect that evolution has had on the collective psyche. Let creation have its own say, and let’s see who’s left standing.

I have read the article, Mr. Auster, and am not convinced that a Christian who finds that evolutionary theory is correct cannot remain a Christian. Iannone claims at the end that evolution banishes a universal morality because we “must continue to evolve in response to our changing environment.” This is not much of an objection given that all men change according to their environment but are not prevented from possessing a permanent human nature. Though I agree with her critique of those who attempt to distill morality from evolutionary theory or from sociobiology, I do think that human nature does require a certain morality.

Before debating the particulars of evolutionary theory here, I’ll wait for an okay from you, Mr. Auster. You may not appreciate my turning this into a complete thread-jack.

But to Mr. LeFevre and Mr. Coleman, I can only say that I believe a careful investigation of the theory with an emphasis on exactly the particulars you have heard disputed will reveal that the evolutionary position is somewhat stronger than you may have been led to believe.

Thrasymachus: If you can agree that both sides, (or however many there are,) should be freely laid on the table for students to exercise their own powers of intellect and discernment, that they should be freely debated without one side having an absolute monopoly, then I’m quite satisfied and needn’t pursue a debate for which I lack the qualifications.

If you don’t agree, and feel that only evolution should be taught, then you should explain this position. ;-)

I do agree. My own belief, Mr. LeFevre, is that parents should have absolute authority over what their children are taught. I also think that anyone who claims to believe in evolution without being informed of the best possible evidence against the theory is thinking unscientifically and is a dogmatist.

Mr. Purdy’s “bitterly ironic” sense that Christianity and Islam are basically the same is also typical of modern secularists who, as Dennis Prager argues in the article I’m quoting below, fear any serious religion:

———

… But in the modern West, hundreds of millions of people have no such faith in anything. They do not passionately believe in their country or in religion. Their highest values are tolerance, health, pleasure, and not judging good and evil. They are deeply afraid of fervent believers in anything. And they especially fear American believers — i.e., believers in the Bible and in America. That is why they commonly equate fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims and that is why they so hate George W. Bush, the believer in the biblical God and in an American mission.

… We cannot defeat the Islamist threat without the same degree of faith fanatical Muslims have. That is why most Europeans have capitulated to the anti-liberty Muslims in their midst and to the Muslims in the Middle East who seek to annihilate Israel, the state in their midst that venerates liberty.

But in Israel, the Islamists have come upon an enemy many of whose people believe in their religion as deeply as the Islamists do in theirs. This is a major reason Israel is isolated along with America as the Islamists’ main enemy. America and Israel have believers. The defeat of one or the other will render the Islamists’ goal — a Muslim world governed by Islamic laws — probable, if not inevitable.

That is why this battle is a battle of civilizations. One civilization believes in liberty and one does not. The problem is that the civilization that has liberty has not produced anywhere the depth of belief in liberty that the opponents of liberty have produced. That is why most Europeans (and their supporters in America on the Left) see dying or killing for almost anything as pointless. When you don’t believe in anything except not dying, you don’t really believe in anything. For this reason, European civilization is in peril.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20031007.shtml

————-

If Thrasymachus or Joel or anyone wants a discussion on evolution, I’m opening a new blank thread where you can have at it.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001814.html

I certainly agree that both sides should be heard. Then again, I oppose government schooling and support privatization of all schools, which would end all public controversy over who gets to teach what. I urge traditionalists to examine www.sepschool.org and not put their energies into doing battle with the public schools. Instead, abandon them.

Page 106 of Creation and Time addresses the supposedly declining magnetic field of the earth, which is actually fluctuating in strength over very long periods, even reversing its polarity every 500,000 years, as confirmed by aligned metallic particles in geological formations. By extrapolating backwards from a recent decline, it is possible to posit that the decline could only have been proceeding at that pace for sveral thousands of years. However, the extrapolation incorrectly assumes that it is a linear process, whereas it is actually sinusoidal; the field has gained and lost strength over the eons. If there is any young-earth creationist author or website of any repute still advancing this “evidence”, I would be glad to have a pointer to it. (Does your “familiarity” with Hugh Ross’ arguments include reading a short and readable book on the subject? I heartily recommend it.)

Any pointers to your other two examples would be great, also.

Mr. Auster said, “The problem is that the civilization that has liberty has not produced anywhere the depth of belief in liberty that the opponents of liberty have produced.”

At one time that wasn’t true. Nazi leader Dr. Ernst Hanftstaengl stated, “Democracy has no convictions for which people would be willing to sacrifice their lives.”

But in that recent but receding past people WERE willing to sacrifice their lives! And before that, General Washington led a Revolution to secure our liberty at cost of blood and toil.

The problem would be better stated by asserting that we have lost the sense of conviction, having largely abandoned our former Biblical moorings, that produced the fire in the bosom to defend our beloved civilization.

To Mr. LeFevre,

I didn’t say that. Dennis Prager did. That entire passage enclosed by dotted lines is from his article.

Mr. Coleman wrote:
“Then again, I oppose government schooling and support privatization of all schools, which would end all public controversy over who gets to teach what.”

Compulsory “free” public schooling is an odd thing, isn’t it? It suffers from at least two fundamental problems. First, there is no support for doing it in the history of Christendom, as far as I know. I haven’t studied it closely, but as far as I can tell it is a purely modern phenomenon. Traditionally school attendance has been a privilege, not a right nor a duty. Second, the actual values-content of the public school system is outright evil.

There is some merit to providing means for the unfortunate to improve themselves. I am not against all public subsidy of education under all conceivable circumstances. The State does have a legitimate interest in the formation of children into good citizens. But compulsory institutional State schools under comprehensive State control? Shut ‘em all down.

The Jesuit theologian Edward T. Oakes engaged in a illuminating if complicated exchange over evolutionary science in the journal First Things several years ago. Here is the book review that sparked this controversy:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0101/reviews/oakes.html

And here is the correspondence which followed:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/correspondence-oakes.html

Well, that’s what I get for being overly rhetorical. For the record I do believe that Islam poses a threat to the West. However, I am less convinced than many in this forum that it constitutes a very grave threat. I am fully convinced that the nature of the threat cannot be addressed by bombardments and invasions. You have only to ask yourselves whether you believe Christianity would be defeated if the US were to be successfully invaded by China to understand my point. I would go further and say that the current strategy of the US government runs the risk of overextending US power and therefore weakening it early in the long struggle that lies ahead. A military approach will also have the effect of greatly expanding the state and its interventions into the economy and civil society. I doubt we will get a Christian Renaissance (or Restoration if you prefer) from such developments.
Secularist I may be, but I still greatly prefer Christianity to Islam. However, I prefer it because it is mellow and tolerant – unlike Islam.
Earlier comments spoke of the exclusion of Muslims and homosexuals. All very well I suppose but let me ask you this: given what I understand about your respective religious backgrounds I dare say that 300 years ago Matt and Mr. Auster would not have been on speaking terms at all. Nor would there have been any facile inclusion of the Jews as members of Western society. No less a thinker than John Milton denied that Roman Catholics should be allowed freedom of conscience, even in private ceremony.
So you accept and even embrace this extension of tolerance but balk at further such extensions today – and make no mistake, the degree of hostility among the branches of Christianity in Milton’s time were quite as strong as they are now between Christians and Muslims.
Fear of strong religion? Yes and for good reason. Anyone who believes that strong religious feeling is simply good ignores the historical record. Maybe you’ll all get along famously with your strong and traditional identities but maybe, once the secularists are out of the way, you’ll turn on each other. It’s not impossible at all.
Finally, I believe the Pope has shown wisdom in his opposition to the Iraq war and his willingness to meet with Muslim leaders. I believe he does this as a man of peace and not as a liberal influenced religious leader. I further believe there is a danger in associating traditionalism with a warlike stance and denouncing all attempts at reconciliation as “liberal vacillation”. If the current militaristic strategy proves disastrous, and I believe it will, you may find yourselves more isolated than ever. Prudence and Temperance are conservative values are they not?

Granting what Mr. Purdy says about the past terrible conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and the exclusion and persecution of Jews, he is ignoring the great historical fact of AMERICA in which Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, notwithstanding their religious differences, had a common, Christian-based culture with a Judeo-Christian morality. Yet this mutual assimilation that is possible among Catholics, Protestants and Jews is NOT possible between Westerners and Muslims. The West and Islam were at war for centuries, a war that only went into abeyance when Islam lost the ability to threaten Europe and entered into a historic decline. Now that Islam is gaining power again, the conflict of civilizations has re-emerged.

Also, is it really necessary to remind Mr. Purdy that the secular life he values is only possible under a Christian civilization with its separation of church and state?

Mr. Purdy’s thoughtful discourse is elusive about the central question here; the question of Truth. From the secularist’s position, in view of which all religion is at base false, the antagonisms between religions are not even tragic but merely insane. But for religious men — Catholic, Protestant, Muslim — the issue at hand is the salvation of immortal souls.

Thus if Islam is a heresy, it must by definition contain some elements of truth; but by those partial truths — the equality of men before God, the awesome majesty of the One God; true doctrine, but incomplete — by those very truths, in their incompleteness, Islam is leading souls astray.

If this (rather crudely presented) analysis is accurate, then the secular critique is patently inadequate. And Mr. Purdy’s statement that “anyone who believes that strong religious feeling is simply good ignores the historical record” is simply beside the point.

Mr. Purdy wrote:
“So you accept and even embrace this extension of tolerance but balk at further such extensions today – and make no mistake, the degree of hostility among the branches of Christianity in Milton’s time were quite as strong as they are now between Christians and Muslims.”

I don’t think that adequately describes my own position. It is true that liberalism grew up as a (flawed) reaction to the post-reformation wars of religion. But I view the loss of Christendom as an unmitigated and unnecessary loss, a loss attributable primarily to the despicable behavior of both the Renaissance Popes and the so-called Reformers. (Of course without that loss I wouldn’t be here at all - the evil in my own contingent history is part of the original sin that constitutes my being and is healed in baptism, so the only way out for me personally is repentance and redemption, looking forward).

So anyway, I think the lessons of the Wars of Religion haven’t been learned yet, since the putative solution - liberalism - has only resulted in more violence, depravity, and tyranny; not less.

Matt wrote:

“So anyway, I think the lessons of the Wars of Religion haven’t been learned yet, since the putative solution - liberalism - has only resulted in more violence, depravity, and tyranny; not less.”

It would be fascinating to hear what the correct lesson of the Wars of Religion is. It cannot be underestimated how horrible the Thirty Years war became. That has always justified liberalism, i.e., the progressive removal of Christianity from the public square and society as a whole. What is our answer?